How many judgments cite CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.?

461 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. (345 ITR 494), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 9(1)(vi), Section 195, Section 9(1)(vii), Section 40(a)(i), Section 13(4), Section 13(3)(a).

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.

345 ITR 494High Court2012#153 most cited

What is CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. authority for?

Payments by Indian residents to non-resident foreign software suppliers for software are considered royalty, constituting income deemed to accrue in India under section 9(1)(v), thereby requiring tax deduction at source under section 195.

461

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd. · section 9(1)(v) · section 9(1)(vi) · section 195 · computer software royalty · non-resident payments · deemed income India · tax deduction at source · foreign software suppliers · royalty income · software licensing

Sections most often in play

Section 9(1)(vi)Section 195 Section 9(1)(vii)Section 40(a)(i)Section 13(4)Section 13(3)(a)Section 13(4)(c)Section 144C(5)

Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 9(1)(vi)computer software section 9(1)section 195 fees for technical services permanent establishment section 30 non-resident double taxation section 19 transfer person

Judgments citing CIT v. Samsung Electronics Ltd.

Intech Billing Ireland, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) RG 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1535/MUM/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manjunatha, Hon'Bleintec Billing Ireland V. The Assistant Director Of Income –Tax C/O S.R.B.C & Associates Llp (International Taxation), 14Th Floor, The Ruby, Range 3(1), Scindia House, 29 Senapati Bapat Marg, Mumbai - 400 038 Dadar (West) Mumbai – 400 028 Pan No: Aadca 7890 E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.P. Lohia Shri Nikhil Tiwari Department By : Shri Samuel Darse

For Appellant: Shri M.P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Samuel Darse

Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)Section 9Section 9(1)(vi)

…ts of the present case, the DRP accepts that in assessee’s case the present software is in the nature of a shrink wrapped/off the shelf software. However, the DRP placing reliance on the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd [345 ITR 494] and the decision of the Mumbai Bench in the case of DDIT v. Reliance Infocomm Ltd held payment made by RIL to the assessee is for the use of or right to use of copyright and is royalty within the meaning of Article 12 of India Ireland DTAA. Aggrieved by the final 5 Intec Billing Ireland order of the learned AO (based on DRP direction), the asse…

DCIT Cen Cir 20, Mumbai vs. Purnandu Jain (HUF), Mumbai

In the result, this appeal by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 927/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 926 & 927/Bang/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/S. Shell India Markets Private Ito (International Taxations), Limited Ward 2(1), Bangalore बनाम/ Trent House, First Floor, G Block, (Now Transferred To Ito (Tds)- Vs. Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Complex, Ltu, Mumbai)) Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.Aaics1404 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : Shri Madhur Agarwal & Shri Dinesh Patil ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. V. Rajguru

For Appellant: Shri Madhur Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri M. V. Rajguru

Section 14Section 195Section 201Section 201(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण “एल” "यायपीठ मुंबई म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos. 926 & 927/Bang/2012 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) M/s. Shell India Markets Private ITO (International Taxations), Limited Ward 2(1), Bangalore बनाम/ Trent House, First Floor, G Block, (now transferred to ITO (TDS)- Vs. Plot No. C-60, Bandra Kurla Complex, LTU, Mumbai)) Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No.AAICS1404 P (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant…

Technicolor India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

In the result, both the assessee’s appeals for asst

ITA 1813/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarit(Tp)A No.1812 & 1813/Bang/2016 (Asst. Year 2010-11) Technicolor India Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, International Taxation, Bangalore. . Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Tanmayee, Advocate Respondent By : Shri Satyasai Rath, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 21-11-2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 6-12-2017 O R D E R

For Appellant: Ms. Tanmayee, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satyasai Rath, Addl. CIT

Section 195Section 201(1)Section 9(1)(vi)

…7/10/2016, in which the co-ordinate bench followed the decisions of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the cases of CIT Vs. Synopsis International Old Ltd., 28 taxmann.com IT(TP)A No.1812 & 1813/B/2010 8 162 (Kar) and CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., 345 ITR 494 (Kar). 5. Per contra, the ld AR for the assessee contended that as per a later judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Wipro Ltd., Vs. CIT, 62 taxmann.com 26 (Kar), the issue for consideration has been held in favour of the assessee and since this is a later judgment, the same should be followed. 6.1 We have heard the rival co…

Tata Hal Technologies Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore

ITA 1592/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri. Srinivas Bharath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Pardeep Kumar, JCIT

Section 201Section 40Section 40a

…he assessee claimed depreciation of Rs.29,67,451. The Assessing Officer held that the payment for purchase of software is in the nature of Royalty in view of the decision of Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. 345 ITR 494. Since the assessee did not deduct TDS therefore, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of Page 3 of 10 depreciation of the assessee. The assessee challenged the action of the Assessing Officer before the CIT (Appeals) but could not succeed. 4. We have heard the learned Authorised Representative as well as learned Departmental Representativ…

Ge India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 595/BANG/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore17 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri. Inturi Rama Rao & Shri. Lalit Kumar, Judiciali.T.A No.595/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri. Rohit Gara, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Vandana Sagar, CIT

Section 195Section 40Section 9

…ITA 595/Bang/2016 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'C', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIT KUMAR, JUDICIAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.595/Bang/2016 (Assessment Year : 2010-11) GE India Industrial P. Ltd, (as successor in interest to GE India Technology Centre P. Ltd, Now amalgamated), 401, 402, 4th floor, Aggarwal Millenium Tower, E1, 2, 3, Netaji Subash Place, Wazirpur, NEW DELHI 110 034 .. Appellant PAN : AAACG4901D v. Addl. Commissioner of Income-tax, Range-11, Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : Shri. Rohit Gara, Advocate Revenue by : S…

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 4(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 1203/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Samuel Darse, DR

Section 143(3)Section 90

…orted in [2013] 39 Taxmann.com 88, wherein host of other decisions have been referred and relied upon. In the A.Y. 2008-09, the learned CIT (A) has relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. [2013]345 ITR 494 and some other decisions of the Tribunal. We find that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has taken note of this fact and also analysed the payment of software within the ambit of royalty as defined under Article 12 of the India US Treaty. The relevant observation and finding of the Hon’ble High Court is as under: M/s Sh e ll In fo rm a tio n Te c h n…

Shell Information Technology International Bv, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 2(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of assessee are allowed

ITA 2204/MUM/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri G. Manjunatha, Am

For Appellant: Niraj Sheth, ARFor Respondent: Samuel Darse, DR

Section 143(3)Section 90

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T., Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 799/BANG/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92C

…e to the Gartner Group constituted royalty and were therefore liable for TDS under Section 195 of the Act, by following its own decisions of even date in the cases of Wipro Limited in ITA No.2804/2005 and others and CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar.). 6.2.2 It is not in dispute that the payments to Forrester Research Inc., USA and Meta are similar to the payments made to the Gartner Group. In this factual and legal matrix of the case, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee's own case dt.15.10.2011 for 6 IT(TP)A Nos.799 & 942/Bang/2015 Infosys Limited Assess…

Infosys Ltd., Bangalore vs. Addl.C.I.T, Bangalore

In the result, Revenue’s appeal for A

ITA 102/BANG/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: Shri H.N. Khincha, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. N. Parbat, CIT-III (D.R)

Section 143(3)Section 195Section 40Section 92ASection 92C

…made to the Gartner Group constituted royalty and were therefore liable for TDS under Section 195 of the Act, following its own decisions of even date in the cases of Wipro Limited in ITA No.2804/2005 and others and CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (2012) 345 ITR 494 (Kar.). 6.2.2 It is not in dispute that the payments to Forrester Research Inc., USA are similar to the payments made to the Gartner Group. In this factual and legal matrix of the case, the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the assessee's own case dt.15.10.2011 for Assessment Years 2000-01 to 2003-04 (supra) are squarely applicab…

DCIT, Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 331/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 40

…pex Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd and particularly in view of interpretation of this judgement by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, [2009] 185 Taxman 313 (Kar.)/ [2010] 320 ITR 209 in the case of M/s. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and other cases in the context of obligation to make TDS in respect of payments made to Non-Resident Payees for supply of shrink wrapped standardised software. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held as under: 66. If one is allowed the liberty of giving a rough and crude comparison to -I' the manner…

Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee and revenue are dismissed

ITA 315/CTK/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mahapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri A.K.Mohapatra, CITDR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 40

Bharat Bijlee Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst DIT (It) 3(2), Mumbai

ITA 5329/MUM/2014[]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2017

Bench: S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. & Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././Ita No. 5326-5329/Mum/2014, आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा" िनधा" रण वष" रण वष" /Assessment Year: Not Applicable रण वष" Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Asstt. Director Income Tax-(Intl. 6Th Floor Eectric Mansion, Taxation)-3(2) Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Vs. 1St Floor, Room No.132, Scindia House Mumbai-400 025. N.M. Marg, Ballard Pier Mumbai-400 038. Pan: Aaacb 2900 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri Rajguru M.V. Assessee By: S/Shri Ronak Doshi/Hardik Nirmal सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 20/09/2017 घोषणा क" तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 03.11.2017 आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम आयकर आयकर अिधिनयम अिधिनयम,1961 क" अिधिनयम क" क" धारा क" धारा धारा 254(1)के अ"तग"त आदेश धारा के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश के अ"तग"त आदेश Order U/S.254(1)Of The Income-Tax Act,1961(Act) लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य,राजे"" के अनुसार लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य राजे"" के अनुसार राजे"" के अनुसार /Per Rajendra,Am: राजे"" के अनुसार Challenging The Orders,Dated 21/2/2014 Of The Cit(A)-10,Mumbai,The Assessee Has Filed The Above Mentioned Appeals.As The Issue Involved In These Appeals Is Identical,So, We Are Adjudi -Cating Them Together.Assessee, A Public Limited Company, Is Engaged In Manufacturing Of Electric Motors,Transformers, Gearless Machines For Elevators & Marketing Of Drives & Maintenance Products.

For Appellant: S/Shri Ronak Doshi/Hardik NirmalFor Respondent: Shri Rajguru M.V

Section 195Section 195(2)Section 254(1)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण मुंबई मुंबई “एल मुंबई एल एल” ” ” ” खंडपीठ एल खंडपीठ खंडपीठ खंडपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “L” BENCH, MUMBAI सव"ी राजे"", लेखा सद"य एवं संदीप गोसांई ,"याियक सद"य Before S/Shri Rajendra, A.M. and Sandeep Gosain,J.M. आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं././././ITA No. 5326-5329/Mum/2014, आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं िनधा" िनधा"रण वष" िनधा" िनधा" रण वष" रण वष" /Assessment Year: Not applicable रण वष" Bharat Bijlee Ltd. Asstt. Director Income tax-(Intl. 6th Floor Eectric Mansion, Taxation)-3(2) Appasaheb Marathe Marg, Prabhadevi Vs. 1st Fl…

Cibersites India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is partly allowed, as indicated above

ITA 1051/BANG/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Jason P.Boaz, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sampath Raghunathan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Padmameenakshi, JCIT

Section 10ASection 195Section 40

…n by the Assessing Officer. The relevant finding of the CIT(A) reads as follow:- “The said payment is squarely covered under ‘royalty’ liable to deduction of tax at source u/s 195 as held by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Samsung Electronics in 320 ITR 209 (Kar). The provisions of section 40(a)(i) are therefore applicable. The disallowance made is in order and is upheld.” 3.3 Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal. 4. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The assessee has made payment to its parent…

ACIT, Bhubaneswar vs. Indian Metals & Ferro Alloys Ltd, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 73/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

…rary to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of GE India Technology Centre (P) Ltd. v. CIT: 327 ITR 456 (SC), wherein over-ruling the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.: 320 ITR 209 (Kar), it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that the provisions of section 195 of the Act are attracted only if the payments made to the non-resident recipient are chargeable to tax in India and hence subject to deduction of tax. The Assessing Officer having failed to demonstrate how the payments to non-resident were chargeable to tax…

Indian Metals and Ferro Alloy Ltd, Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the

ITA 47/CTK/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack25 Oct 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Sachit Jolly, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 195Section 195(1)Section 40

Allegris Services India Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1370/BANG/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Shri Chavali Narayan, CAFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (D.R)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH ‘ A ’ BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.(T.P) A. No.1370/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) M/s. Allegis Services India Pvt. Ltd., Commerce @ Mantri, Level-3, No.12/1 & 12/2, NS Palya, Bannerghatta Raod, Bangalore-560 076. …. Appellant. Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 11(1), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. I.T.(T.P) A. No.1438/Bang/2014 (Assessment Year : 2009-10) (By Revenue) Assessee By : Shri Chavali Narayan, CA Revenue By : Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (D.R) Date of Hearing : 09.08.2017. D…

Asst CIT (It) 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Societe Generale, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 4542/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 4542 & 1671/Mum/2015 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2009-10 & 2010-11) Dy. Cit(It)-4(2)(2), M/S. Societe Generale 1St Floor, R. No. 120, 19Th Floor, Tower ‘A’ बिधम/ Scindia House, Ballard Estate Peninsula Business Park, Vs. N.M. Road, Mumbai-400 038 Ganpatrao Kadam Marg Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ Pan/Gir No. Aabcs7484C (अपीलाथी/Revenue ) (प्रत्यथी /Assessee) :

For Appellant: Shri Brijmohan P. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)

…e assessment order passed has at length discussed various decisions holding that payment made for the purchases of software would be in the nature of royalty such as the Karnataka High Court decision in the case of CIT Vs. Samsung Electronics Company Limited (320 ITR 209), the Delhi Tribunal decision in the case of Gracemac Vs. ADIT [8 ITR (Tribunal) 522] and the AAR decision in the case of Citrix Systems Asia Pacific Private Limited (343 ITR 1). The assessee on the other hand, in the course of the present appellate proceedings has brought to the attention of the undersigned an equally long list of decisions in f…

DCIT, (It)- 4(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Societe Generale, Mumbai

The appeal of the revenue is partly allowed

ITA 1671/MUM/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai11 Sept 2017AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Brijmohan P. Agarwal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri M.V. Rajguru, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 40Section 9(1)

DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bhubaneswar vs. M/S. Paradeep Phosphates Limited, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed and that of

ITA 289/CTK/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack04 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

For Appellant: Shri B.K.MohapatraFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

Section 195Section 195(1)Section 195(2)Section 197Section 263Section 40Section 92

…pex Court in Transmission Corporation of A.P. Ltd and particularly in view of interpretation of this judgement by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT (International Taxation) v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd, [2009] 185 Taxman 313 (Kar.)/ [2010] 320 ITR 209 in the case of M/s. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. and other cases in the context of obligation to make TDS in respect of payments made to Non-Resident Payees for supply of shrink wrapped standardised software. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held as under: ITA No. 264/CT K/ 2015 Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 66. If one is allowed the liberty o…

DCIT, Cir-4(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Goodricke Group Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 971/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A No. 971/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Dcit, Circle-4(1), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Goodricke Group Ltd., Kolkata [Pan: Aabcg1614Q] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Sallong Yadav, Addl. CIT DRFor Respondent: Shri P.N. Rajendram, FCA

Section 143(3)

…t source u/s 195 of the Act. The ld AO in support of it relied the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Transmission Corporation of AP Limited vs. CIT (239 ITR 587) and the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. (320 ITR 209), which according to the ld AR was due to an erroneous appreciation of the ratio of the said decisions of the respective Hon’ble Courts. The ld AR pointed out that the Karnataka High Court decision in 320 ITR 209 (supra) was overruled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of GE India Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT and another (327 ITR 456…